IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ERNEST TAYLOR CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, VS. THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE, ET AL. NO. 3-579-BAJ-RLB Defendants. PLAINTIFF S MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Plaintiff Ernest Taylor, who respectfully requests that the Court issue an Order setting a status conference for the purpose of discussing issues surrounding Plaintiff s unresolved claims against Defendants. The circumstances warranting a conference are more fully set forth in the Memorandum in Support of this Motion, filed concurrently herewith. A status conference would greatly benefit all parties by allowing them to consider the Court s input when determining the appropriate manner by which resolution can be brought to all claims at issue. Respectfully submitted, s/ Terrence J. Donahue, Jr. Christopher D. Glisson #20200 Terrence J. Donahue, Jr. #3226 MCGLYNN, GLISSON, & MOUTON 340 Florida Street Baton Rouge, Louisiana 7080 (225) 344-3555
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I hereby certify that on September 5, 204, I contacted counsel for Defendant regarding the relief requested above. On September, 204, counsel for Defendants relayed Defendants position that a status conference in this case is not necessary. s/ Terrence J. Donahue, Jr. Terrence J. Donahue, Jr. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice has been served on all counsel of record through a Notice of Electronic Filing generated by the Court s CM/ECF system, including those listed below, on this, the 2 th day of September, 204. Tedrick Knightshead Gwendolyn K. Brown Office of the Parish Attorney East Baton Rouge Parish 222 Saint Louis Street, Room 902 Baton Rouge, LA 7082 s/ Terrence J. Donahue, Jr. Terrence J. Donahue, Jr. 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ERNEST TAYLOR CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, VS. THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE, ET AL. NO. 3-579-BAJ-RLB Defendants. I. Procedural History MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF S REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE Plaintiff Ernest Taylor instituted this action on September 3, 203, asserting claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 983, the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Sections 2, 4, 5, and of Article I of the Louisiana Constitution, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in addition to monetary damages (including punitive damages and attorney s fees). [Doc. ]. Defendants failed to answer Plaintiff s Complaint, and on April 6, 204, the Clerk issued an order placing Defendants in default. [Doc. 7]. Upon Plaintiff s motion, the Court entered default judgment in favor of Plaintiff with respect to his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief arising under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and set a hearing to determine the amount of monetary damages to which Plaintiff is entitled pursuant to his Second Amendment claims. [Doc. 69]. The Court s Order granting default judgment expressly excluded the other claims appearing in Plaintiff s complaint from the judgment. See id. at 0, n.6. The Court scheduled this hearing for October 23, 204, and set September 23, 204 as the deadline for the submission of Plaintiff s pre-hearing memorandum
After the Clerk placed Defendants in default, but before the Court entered default judgment with respect to Plaintiff s Second Amendment claims, Plaintiff notified the Court of facts supporting the existence of additional claims arising from the events forming the basis of this suit. See Plaintiff s Notice of Facts Related to Current Proceedings, [Doc. 32] and Plaintiff s Response in Support of Defendants Motion for Leave to File Exhibit Conventionally, [Doc. 54]. Plaintiff indicated in his filings that, while he desired to amend his complaint to include these additional claims, he did not wish to lose the procedural advantage afforded by virtue of Defendants default. See [Doc. 32] at 3-4. On September, 204, Defendants filed a Motion for Leave requesting permission to submit a motion to set aside the Clerk s default on those claims for which judgment has not yet been entered. 2 [Doc. 74]. II. Argument Plaintiff respectfully asserts that a status conference is warranted in order to discuss the appropriate manner in which the resolution of the remaining issues in this case should proceed. Since learning of the events detailed within Plaintiff s Notice of Facts Related to Current Proceedings, Plaintiff s counsel has attempted to work with Defendants to determine a mutually agreeable manner in which to bring Plaintiff s additional claims into the present suit. These efforts have been unsuccessful, and Defendants have indicated their opposition to any attempt by Plaintiff to amend the present complaint. 2 It is not readily apparent why Defendants sought leave to file this motion. Further, while Defendants argue that default judgment has not been entered with respect to Plaintiff s Second Amendment claims, they are mistaken. As will be fully set forth in Plaintiff s Response, the Court s previous determinations regarding these claims would not be subject to the Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c) good cause standard cited in Defendants Motion, but rather the more exacting standards required by either Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) or, at best, the standard for reviewing interlocutory orders dictated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). 2
Despite opposing any amendment to the current complaint, Defendants have now filed a motion seeking to have the Clerk s default set aside with respect to those claims for which default judgment has not already issued. See [Doc. 74]. While Plaintiff disagrees that his Second Amendment claims fall into this category (as the Court has already entered default judgment), Plaintiff does not oppose Defendants request with respect to the claims excluded by the Court in its Order and Ruling granting Plaintiff s Motion for Default Judgment. 3 Should the Court set aside the Clerk s default with respect to any of Plaintiff s claims, the parties will be placed in the same position they were in immediately after the filing of Plaintiff s suit. Under these circumstances, Plaintiff will be entitled to amend his complaint as a matter of right. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)()(B) (stating that a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 2 days of being served with a responsive pleading or a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 2(b), (e), or (f)). Given the circumstances described above, Plaintiff also intends to make additional filings, including a motion for leave to amend and supplement his complaint with facts discovered or occurring after the date on which the original complaint was filed. Such action will ensure that the issues described above have been adequately brought before the Court for consideration. Furthermore, as Defendants have already sought, and as Plaintiff intends to seek the Court s intervention on issues germane to the hearing scheduled for October 23, 204, a postponement of the hearing is likely justified. Should the Clerk s entry of default be set aside with respect to any of Plaintiff s claims, the information obtained through the subsequent discovery process is likely to impact the determination of the amount monetary damages to 3 Specifically, Plaintiff consents to setting aside the Clerk s entry of default with respect to his claims arising under 42 U.S.C. 983, the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and Sections 2, 4, 5, and of the Louisiana Constitution. See [Doc. 69] at 0, n.6. 3
which Plaintiff is entitled under his Second Amendment claims, particularly with respect to punitive damages. Delaying the hearing until after the court has reached its determination on the issues identified above will also permit the parties to engage in settlement negotiations, which have become considerably protracted due to the internal procedures of the Parish Attorney s Office. III. Conclusion For the reasons appearing above, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court set a status conference to address the issues identified above. 4 Respectfully submitted, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE s/ Terrence J. Donahue, Jr. Christopher D. Glisson #20200 Terrence J. Donahue, Jr. #3226 MCGLYNN, GLISSON, & MOUTON 340 Florida Street Baton Rouge, Louisiana 7080 (225) 344-3555 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice has been served on all counsel of record through a Notice of Electronic Filing generated by the Court s CM/ECF system, including those listed below, on this, the 2 th day of September, 204. Tedrick Knightshead Gwendolyn K. Brown Office of the Parish Attorney East Baton Rouge Parish 222 Saint Louis Street, Room 902 Baton Rouge, LA 7082 s/ Terrence J. Donahue, Jr. Terrence J. Donahue, Jr.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ERNEST TAYLOR CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, VS. THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE, ET AL. NO. 3-579-BAJ-RLB Defendants. ORDER Considering Plaintiff s Motion for Status Conference, the Court finds the relief requested to be justified and GRANTS the Motion. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court will hold a status conference in this matter at a.m/p.m. on the day of, 204, to discuss the issues remaining in this case. Should it become necessary, the Court will issue further instructions to the parties regarding this conference. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this day of, 204. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE